Saturday, February 20, 2016

THE TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED DURING THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.

In the case of WILFREDO
M. TRINIDAD vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN THRU THE OMBUDSMAN SIMEON
V. MARCELO AND DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, ASIA’S EMERGING
DRAGON CORPORATION, AND THE SANXXXNBAYAN PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, En
Banc, G.R. No. 166038, November
4, 2007, the Supreme Court, among other things, held that “at the preliminary investigation,
determination of probable cause merely entails weighing of facts and
circumstances, relying on the calculus of common sense, without resorting to
the calibrations of technical rules of evidence.” THUS:

“x x x.

As for petitioner’s objection to the admissibility
of documents culled from various proceedings like the legislative hearings
before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and the arbitration proceedings before
the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration in
ICC Case No. 12610/TE/MW, it is premature to raise the same.

First, there is no showing from the above-quoted
pertinent portion of its assailed Resolution that the Office of the Ombudsman
relied on those documents in support of its findings. At the
preliminary investigation, determination of probable cause merely entails
weighing of facts and circumstances, relying on the calculus of common sense,
without resorting to the calibrations of technical rules of evidence. It
is not the proper forum to determine the alleged breach by the OSG of the rule
on confidentiality of arbitration proceedings as provided under the ICC
Internal Rules and Republic Act No. 9285 (Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of
2004).